Legislative panel questions industry on controversial hydrofracking as state forms new rules

By BRIAN NEARING Staff writer

Published 12:41 am, Friday, May 27, 2011

Sandra Steingraber, PhD of Ithaca College speaks of her research on fraking at the hearing of the Assembly Health and Environmental Committee in the subject of fraking for natural gas reserves throughout the state at the Legislative Office building in Albany, N.Y. May 26, 2011. (Skip Dickstein/ Times Union)

Sandra Steingraber, PhD of Ithaca College speaks of her research on...

Assemblyman Robert K. Sweeney listens during a hearing by the Assembly Health and Environmental Committee in the subject of fraking for natural gas reserves throughout the state at the Legislative Office building in Albany, N.Y. May 26, 2011. (Skip Dickstein/ Times Union)

Scott Cline, a petroleum engineer, and Uni Blake, an environmental scientist, fielded questions for more than two hours on hydrofracking, a drilling technique where a high-pressure mix of chemical, water and sand is pumped deep underground to break up rocks and free trapped bubbles of natural gas.

The state could be on the cusp of a hydrofracking boom in the gas-rich Marcellus Shale, a formation that stretches from the Catskills through the Southern Tier. No drilling has begun, as the state Department of Environmental Conservation has been studying rules for the process for the last two years.

Hydrofracking requires millions of gallons of water for each well. About a third of that water returns to the surface, and contains the chemicals, as well as brine salts and low levels of radioactivity. Opponents are concerned that ground water could be contaminated, particularly by methane gas that can rise through fissures in rock, and by used frack water back at the surface, which if not properly treated, could pollute rivers or streams.

Cline testified that the pollution risk from hydrofracking comes from surface spills of used water, but not from the underground fracturing of rock formations. He said cases where drinking water wells were tainted by methane, a natural gas byproduct after hydrofracking began nearby, were not connected to the technique.

He blamed methane contamination of wells found in Dimmock, Pa., near the border of New York state's Southern Tier, on "human error and unique local geological conditions" of methane much closer to surface than where hydrofracking had taken place.

That report found that hydrofracking can create or enlarge existing subterranean cracks that can provide a path for hydrofracked methane to reach drinking water aquifers.

"That is conjecture on their part, I disagree," said Cline, a resident of Ontario County who has worked for oil and gas companies based in Houston and Oklahoma City.

Engelbright also questioned why the U.S. Congress in 2005 specifically barred the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act from regulating hydrofracking, instead leaving it up to the states to control. That exemption was spearheaded by former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who has strong ties to the energy industry.

"This was in intentional blinding of the scientific community," Englebright said.

Another witness, Dr. Adam Law, an endocrinologist from Ithaca, said the state should extend its current moratorium on horizontal hydrofracking beyond its June expiration.

He said the risks of exposure to drilling chemicals, some of which are considered proprietary secrets by the industry, are not fully understood, despite hydrofracking being done for nearly a decade in other states, like Colorado, Texas and New Mexico. "There is anecdotal evidence of human harm ... so there is a need for further caution before New York joins into this large misconceived experiment," he said. He said that as many as a third of the chemicals acknowledged to be used in hydrofracking can harm the human endocrine system.